- 9 -
must bear the consequences of petitioners’ failure to properly
file their tax returns with, or otherwise apprise respondent of,
petitioners’ new address.
Petitioners argue that respondent should have, but did not,
mail to petitioners’ representative a copy of the various dunning
letters. Failure of respondent to mail to petitioners’
representative a copy of a notice that was mailed to petitioners
provides no basis to reject respondent’s collection action in
this case. See Amsler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-114
(notice generally will be valid even when a copy is not mailed to
a taxpayer’s representative so long as properly mailed to the
taxpayer); Foster v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-115 (citing
Houghton v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 656, 661 (1967)).
Because of petitioners’ repeated violations of the
conditions of the OIC, respondent’s Appeals Office did not abuse
its discretion in sustaining the notice of intent to levy. Other
arguments petitioners make herein have been considered and
rejected.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: March 27, 2008